MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2924884525 · doi:10.22215/timreview/1222

The SDG-Check: Guiding Open Innovation towards Sustainable Development Goals

2019· article· en· W2924884525 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Justus von Geibler, Julius Piwowar, Annika Greven

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Innovation Management Review · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilitySustainable developmentPoliticsPlanetary boundariesPolitical scienceEnvironmental economicsBusinessEconomic systemEnvironmental planningEconomicsGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IntroductionIn the light of human impact reaching planetary boundaries (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015) and various political sustainability objectives, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) formulated by the United Nations (UN, 2015), various stakeholders have called for an accelerated transition towards sustainability (e.g., Jacob et al., 2016; Jha

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.115

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.008
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Innovation Management ReviewSame topicInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207